cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:/b/ (1st)
/b/, \b\ and other things Discussion from Talk:Alliance of /b/ Why was the name of our alliance altered? I feel this is a direct attack against our alliance. Nobody from our alliance approved of this change and now we're locked out of our own wiki? What gives? Please put it back the way it is supposed to be with the slashes facing FORWARD, not backward. If this was an untintentional mistake due to dyslexia, than please have someone who is not disabled, fix it. Thank you. allliance of /b/ I was wondering if this would work. J Andres 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Discussion from User talk:mason11987 Let me start by saying that this sort of thing I was trying to avoid, it would have come up as a discussion on how to fix the problem. The whole subpage thing, as I'm sure you understand, means it classifies the page differently, which, assuming we eventually expand, will lead to issues. It seems that all it does is add a "<", but there is more, the "<" is the only visible evidence. (Part of this problem is that the wikilink at the top of the article-- which I formatted as /b/-- does not work correctly. If it just put that sign there, we wouldn't really have a problem. I locked the redirect page to avoid an edit war, but then decided to put on the template (To make people aware it was locked), but I guess I can remove the template now, and let it redirect, everyone knows. As for that policy page about protection, you wrote that, after his happened, which means I didn't break a policy. Ex post facto. The policy doesn't regulate this situation at all, because, once again, it's ex post facto. If you want to help out with the article, please help "re-write" it. I put that in quotes because it just needs to be changed to meet the style guidelines, see the tempate on the top of the /b/ article. Aido2002 22:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC) : I realize you didn't "break policy" but your solution was un-wiki like and was you using your admin powers to solve a problem that could have had a better solution, namely linking to that article via /b/ (with a space) solves it. If you had used discussion before performing a move like that, or at the very least went to discussion after you were reverted, the whole situation would be better. /b/ is a perfectly legitimate page it just has to be linked to slightly differently _/b/. As those who are editing about /b/ said, they would prefer to deal with the difficulties that THEY would face. If you have a problem with having to put a space there in the few articles that you will link to /b/, then you can simply use \b\ as the link and have that redirect to the correct page, which should really be /b. Simply put, lack of discussion and use of powers (that are a privledge) to enforce what you think is the best solution is a terribly inefficient way towards coming up with a useful solution. I suggest supporting the protection policy I wrote, using discussion to solve problems (like someone correcting your move), and putting the page back where it belongs and allowing those who are interested in the alliance know that if they want the page where it should be they'll just have to do some slightly clever linking (which I'm sure they won't mind). Mason11987 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ::To respond to your comment about moving the page, I moved it manually because I wanted to make sure to move it to the correct page, the system will link to it automatically when editing a protected page (you'll know what I mean by this if you see it), and the name is case-sensitive. Since you were the only editor, I just included in my summary that you wrote it. The following is my response to your comment above: As a bureaucrat, (I used a template for that last word because I can't spell it, if you noticed) it is my job to do seemingly minor things like that to improve the visual presentation of the wiki (among other things). Changing the slashes is the best solution, because this way it is easier for everyone-- that includes people who don't know about having to put a space before the name in a wikilink. It isn't up to the editors of that article to fix this, as they said they wanted to fix the problems they face, because contrary to what it seems they think (based on comments left on the article's talk page) it isn't their article, per se. (I'm using Latin a lot today...) The article is that of the whole community, which, as I previously stated, includes those who don't know about the space solution. My point is, the slash-reversing solution is better for everyone. But this incident made me realize what one of our biggest problems are-- it's not their article. Nobody owns an article, all articles are that of the community, anyone can edit any they want. This seems to be a major contributing problem to this conflict--they think have no right to instill these changes upon them. Like I said before, I did this to try to prevent conflict, so please work with me to hlp resolve it. You and I seem to be the only ones involved that fully understand this, the editors of the article refuse to listen. So, thanks for listening. Aido2002 07:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC) :Ah, while I completely agree behind the reasoning for doing it this way, I think you don't understand that there is a better solution for everyone. People can link to \b\ if they like, then just have that redirect to the correct page, /b/. Problem solved. For the entire community, if they are going to reference /b/, they can use b, \b\, or /b/. It is the absolute easiest solution (thanks to the automation of forwarding, and it comes to the actual name of the alliance. There are definitly naming problems with the software that cannot be deleted (such as names that have +'s in them, for example, but this can be worked out behind the scenes and noone would see any visual cue that there was an issue (besides the extremly minor "<" on the article, which is definitly worth the other benefits. :I recommenced substituting that template when you use it (or templates like welcome/warning templates as well) so that it doesn't need to keep referencing a page when it just needed the original text. :Or, you can use Firefox 2.0, it has an in-browser spell check that highlights incorrect words, like bureaucrat (it told me that was spelled wrong and I fixed it :)). Mason11987 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ::I do use Firefox 2.0, it's just easier to put in the template (for me). We can link /b/ to the article, thats fine, but the article needs the slashes reversed to that it clasifies it correctly. I thought people would ahve a problem with having it classified wrong, but if they are fine with that, then I agree, having the pages redirect to /b/> is fine for now. I'm going to move the article to there, make \b\ a redirect, and delete /b/ Alliance. User:Aido2002 23:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC) :::I found another issue by accident: The name I gave this section, /b/, brings the user to a subpage of the current page named b/. (Click it to see what I mean.) This will be an issue at some point, so we need to make it clear that when linking there, you need the space. ::::Well that is clearly not an issue of the page itself and regarldess of where the information resides (at "/b/" or "\b\" there will still be a problem when people link to /b/ directly. So might as well put the page where it belongs. I don't see exactly what you mean by it being clasified wrong though. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)